Yeah, and then uh All right, we got everybody back. You ready? You ready? >> Yeah. All right, team. We'll we'll move on with the um single single federal audit report. Director Ryder, thank you. >> Yes. Um so, this evening in your board packet, you have three reports under this agenda topic. I I won't walk through all of them, but I will point out what you need to know about each of them. So, if you take a look at the required communications, um I would point out that at the bottom of page one and at the top of page two of that report, you will find essentially the three things that you need to know about this process. Um a little background first, I'm sorry. Um back in November on the 3rd of November, you received an audit report from [snorts] our auditors. At that time, they also told you they could not complete the single audit report at that point because they were still awaiting federal guidance and with the shutdown of the federal government, that wasn't available to them. Since then, they have received it. I do know that no additional testing was required on their part in the process of between then and now, um but they are completing that process now of that single audit and um it's time to just report out then those findings. Um so, with regard to that, the audit opinions and findings, one thing they do is they check to see whether our schedule of expenditures of federal awards, that's all federal funds that we received, is it fairly stated in all material respects and they found that it was. As of June 30, 2025, they checked to see the results of the tests indicating whether or not we had complied in all material respects with the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct or material effect on our major federal programs. And there too, they found no um issues in that regard. The last thing they check is to see if there's any deficiencies in the district's internal controls over compliance and um that they would consider a significant deficiency. There is one. It is the same one that was present the year before. It is one that is rather tricky because although it's a finding, I can tell you that we didn't work with any vendor that was debarred or any vendor that um was suspended. However, it's the documentation of checking it as frequently as they're expecting. So, it's not enough to do it when you first get them as a new vendor, you must do it as well every time you reach a certain threshold of expenditures with them. And that's the tricky part. So, we think we've got the process now in place to address this and to keep us um out of trouble that way. Um but that's that's the deal. And so, um I'm not too concerned about that one because it's a common one and it's a tricky one to finally satisfy where everyone is on the same page and and um agreeing that we've done what we can in that regard. So, this kind of lays out what it was that they found in that the um the CAP, which is the corrective action plan, is listed in a separate document, which talks just about that finding and you can see the 2025-001 is the current year finding and back side of that page is the 2024. The last document that's included in this packet um under this agenda item is the actual federal single audit report, where you can see our federal programs listed as well as um a lot of repetitive information from the other two documents, but it's all in one one place. Happy to answer any questions or maybe Board members, any questions or clarifications needed on that? I remember you mentioning it during the audit process, so thank you for the further explanation. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, hearing none, we can move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the 2026-27 board budget. Um Dr. Thomas. Yes, I'll turn over to Director Ryder. >> Ryder. Okay. Very good. >> I'm going to pull it up on the computer again, this one. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Um simply because we have um there was a request for the board budget showing the last year expenditures as well. So, that's what I'm pulling up here and hopefully you can Let me see if I can get this larger. I think if I do this, that will help. Okay. So, this is the school board portion of the budget. Um first column of numbers being the fiscal year 25 actual expenditures. The next column to the right is the original budget from this current year. And then the middle column of numbers is the revised budget for the current year, followed by what is so far year-to-date expend expended, and then what we are projecting that budget to look like for the 26-27 year. There are two parts of this budget. You'll notice these first um two sections all have uh program code 010, which is the third set of numbers from the left on the account code structure, and that tells me that's a board expenditure. And then down below on the second part of this um page is one that has a 199 and that's what we use to identify election costs. So, um previously, we did not have a budget in 25 for the election. Um so, at that point in time, the board budget only consisted of these first two sections, but we incurred actual expenditures, so you can see where the original 26 budget didn't have anything uh didn't have much there and we realized we needed to have more and that was done in the revision. So, I hope that helps to explain that a little bit better. I'm happy to answer any questions otherwise. Board members? Dr. Mason. Yeah, I have a few. I'm just trying to understand maybe the adjustments that were made. Okay. Um and for the record, I am all for taking this down to the lowest level possible because I feel like I want our money to go to our students. Um but the the um travel conventions and conference went up like 4.5 thousand. What was the reason for the increase there? So, under school board budgets, the third one down, is that 6500? From like two grand. Right, so there's uh you're seeing a a um a budget projected for next year that is has been increased by $4500 on that line item. >> Yep. For what reason? The potential that we'll have four new board members and they have to take phase one and two with MSBA and MSBA workshops. Okay. >> That was enough to cover it. So, it's the it's the conference stuff, not travel. Okay, that's what I was wondering. Yeah, travel would be like mileage. Sure. Okay. You explained one of these. And then the additional like five I think we the printing and binding is we up to to 5,000. Is that for election like materials and Yes, the expectation of like a levy or what what is the >> the 5,000 under the election and that is for um levy prep um levy materials, excuse me. Okay, so that would be for levy materials. The printing and binding, that's Which one did you want under the school board >> and binding, that's like five grand and it's only been like 500 or 1,000. Okay, so it was 10 grand in 25. So, that's specifically for the levy. Mhm. Um I think you answered the rest of my questions. Thank you. Anyone else? No, I just um I I agree with Dr. Mason. I think any ways that we can make [snorts] to reduce expenses with our school board budget um going forth for the balance of this year and then even into next year. Um I know we were asked if we wanted to take an MSB training course and my my concern is we're spending money on consulting fees rather than spending money on our students and um there's a lot of free classes. I'd be happy to pass them on to you. Director Ryder. >> Um that So, um I'm happy to do that, but I do not support spending additional money on um consulting fees or trainings this year. So, thank you. And just to [clears throat] be to protect the record, the there wasn't additional money being spent on that training. Um that that training is an optional uh thing for board members to either choose to do or not to do. Um and that was covered outside of the board budget, so But Chairwoman, wasn't it $200 per board member to take it? It does cost money regardless of which budget it comes out of. But it was it's not taking a away from anything. It wasn't taking away from our specific board budget. I'd rather the money go to the students. >> the training again, it's the board members can choose to to do the training or not to do the training, so. Any other um questions or comments on the board budget? No, I'm happy to see it went down, actually. So, I think that's If everybody else is being asked to reduce their budget, we should as well, so. Thank you. Thank you. Uh next up is the levy survey update. Thank you, Chairwoman board directors. So, at our last uh uh time together, um there was a desire to have some type of very brief survey go out to the community still and you know there's mixed conversations I think several felt we kind of knew that the big themes but wanted to have some kind of short survey that would go out so we didn't know how much [snorts] we should front load on the survey and I also didn't want to put costing here we'll talk about some costing tonight but I didn't want to have it in print because then the moment something goes in print people say that's the actual number so we will talk a little bit about that but the first portion of the survey is obviously just to validate that we're making sure that we're getting our residents our community members taking the survey and not another community stacking the deck and then when we go down into part two the actual two questions because we're saying really short and sweet the first one just capturing trying to get a sense what are the things that are that's very important to you that you want to have protected or you want to see restored we started off by listing some examples but we were wondering whether we were leading the we would be accused of leading the the conversation in that and so we didn't we kind of pulled back from listing out examples but people could write that in and then question number two is trying to reconcile >> [clears throat] >> the willingness to support financially support the things that you think are very are very valuable and and again we heard mixed conversations from the board to say just show a number then we also thought we should talk a little bit about what are some examples of how much it would cost to do certain things so that you all had an understanding of that as well and so um and then also I think Director Smith a couple of board meetings ago just asked also what you know given what you think would need to happen to really respond to bolstering you know the outcomes and experiences for kids from the academic standpoint what would that look like and what would that take so we we kind of started with that and then we could itemize like this is what it would cost if we're doing class size this is what it would cost to look at advanced differentiation or [snorts] to look at intervention supports etc. So we have some of that ready to discuss with you all tonight and I don't know if we want to start there and then just kind of open it up to figure out what of any of these dollar conversations would you want to have see inside this to lead the conversation um on the survey or do you want to just keep it kind of blank and then our initial thoughts here are showing a lower investment basically maintaining what we have if you all recall that maintain what we have just to stay afloat was around that 7 mil and that was roughly the $32 additional and then the moderate would you know and higher would go up from that and we can certainly talk about some of the costing models that we've worked with elders as well and I believe we also correct me if I'm wrong Director Ryder we also noted the uh the older Morris Leatherman range of 20 and and so just to show the board if if [snorts] 20 from that survey it was like 15 to went up to 20 in the in the most most recent survey that they that he did metro wide what would that look like so we thought we would just open up maybe with some of those dialogues around those model models and then see how that might inform what we should add to the actual survey questions itself start with that Director Ryder Okay so we will start with this then I think as you just made mention of it um this is you've seen portions of this before where we spoke about the the first column of numbers which is the 3.3 million dollars and 180 dollars or 15 dollars per month and that would be in addition to where we are now all of this is in addition to where we are right now okay the added column is the 486 in the pupil authority and that's 4. almost 5 mil almost 4.5 million there and that is the 20 dollars per month that was referenced from previous you saw the third column of numbers for tax impact the 377 previously and that's the 7 million dollars that we talked about and that's at almost 32 dollars per month and then there is one listed here that is 807 and the ask here was what is it going to take to get to 15 mil and not so much about how much per month but rather show me what it would do do to see an additional 15 mil and so that's just out there for purpose of discussion all of these numbers I'm referencing are the sorry >> Director Ryder can I interrupt so with the with the 15 mil what was that per what was that dollar amount >> 807 sorry my math in my head isn't very good anymore it's about 67 dollars >> Okay thank you >> sorry Nope that's fine absolutely thank you for that hard for me to always know what you need there so thank you that helped there and then I'm referencing the the row of numbers that show the 525 and that is the average homestead property Director Ryder does the does the 1633 is that the the dollar like right now we have the 624 or is the 1633 on top of the 624 >> all of these numbers are on top of the 624 we have >> be 22 22 something okay >> yes okay yep and does this does this also take into consideration the fact that like I know I had shared with you that example how you can take a 500,000 dollar house in Shakopee and they have a 1600 dollar levy and they pay the exact same amount of property taxes to the school district as the same house in in Prior Lake that we have a 600 per pupil unit levy because we have fewer residents less commercial and so does this model take into account all those tax factors I mean I'm just trying to get my arms around that it does this is solely talking about the operating referendum right but it's talking about the whole like balance of like we have less commercial and we have more farm and all like all that whole calculation is included in there and for us the impact to the taxpayer homeowner is very close on the operating referendum calc to that which is the capital projects tax rate right and in some districts you'll find that that is a much bigger gap and so in those districts it's far easier to pass the operating referendum than it is the capital projects and it all has to do with the tax properties that >> the calculation I mean I was shocked that Shakopee has a 1600 levy and they pay the exact amount of taxes to the school district as we do in Prior Lake and which is makes it more difficult to pass a levy when we're more tax sensitive so thank you I think the only other thing is with the inflationary factor does that included in here at all >> so when talking inflationary factor this is something we'd have to educate people on but you will not find anyone's tax impact data showing that because there is no inflation in the first year right so instead this is really first year impact >> this is just first year yep if I could just add a couple of things so so that point here that we've been talking about for for a little while now we had in our first levy conversation we had the bar graph and then this time around we changed that bar graph to kind of norm for what Director Atkinson's talking about and that is we compared our district to other like commercial less districts is that the way of saying it low commercial low commercial districts just so that people could see where we're at in the pack and then what you see here you know there are certain districts that we seem to always be compared to to say why can't we be like and that far range is if we were funded similar to those districts that's what it would look like in our district so I wanted to give the entire continuum for the board of extremely low to you know sitting at that top three or four you know in the metro >> Sorry. Yep. And do you want me to move on to another? >> Yes. Yes, I'm sorry. Yep. So, we have the step belt language and then we have the Excel document with the costs. Is that You want me to go to the Excel? >> let's So, so let's hold on the hold on the step document. Yep. So, when you when we think about what it is that we would engage our community around in terms of a levy Can you keep that up real quick? That same graph. Um going back to So, to to to essentially break even to to just stay afloat um that is the seven mil column. Okay? That's the 377 plus the 20-something dollars that's being paid, you know, per month 377 a year um divide that out and that was what again? 32? [snorts] 32. >> 32-ish. Okay? Plus the 20 something that they're paying right now currently. Yes. Mhm. So, roughly 50 one-ish, two-ish dollars a month. Yes. That's the ask to keep things afloat in our district. Um Dr. Thomas, [clears throat] um can I ask when you say uh what that's the ask for keeping things the same Yeah. >> um is that after uh the recommended um cuts have been already made? >> the cuts and this is also premised on making 4 million in cuts or was it 3 million? 3 million. cuts every every every year. every year. Okay. So, and I think it's I think it's that's the thing that I think even at the last levy conversation you were really trying to get the community under to understand is that um when we were when you were giving the separate asks last time it was you um just having the community understand that this ask of the $32 or the seven mil keeps things the same after all of the proposed cuts that we are to make now so it's so it's not the same as today. It's the same after all the proposed cuts and even with passing this amount it would be a continuum of 3 million dollar cuts per year going forward and I think that's a hard it's hard for um it's hard to grasp because um it is. And so, I think you know really uh I I remember the last levy conversation and and the at the town halls and all of the you know district produced communication regarding it. It was um in line with what is being told now and so, I think uh however we can solidify that this seven million dollar ask keeping things the same are not as today. Well, it it it is essentially. I mean, we're going to be in this perpetual reduction cycle. >> Mhm. Um with the seven million that's coming in and that just kind of keeps us at forget the term an even keel. Um and I just also So, I start there Mhm. because the conversations or the question also was well, last time you went out um you we as a district went out um we were asking too much. And so, if we moderate the ask more in a line alignment with what the community surveys were suggesting through Morris Leatherman >> [snorts] >> what would that entail? And and that again is that left hand um the left hand column, I believe. Uh I'm sorry, the 240 >> the 486 column. Um so this here is still going to require that three mil reduction. But we're not going to be netting what we would be in this other. So, we're actually going under water by asking that. Okay? So, I just want to help the board understand last time around during the campaign when I expressed my feeling of a bit being disingenuous um it wasn't to try to ask for more just to ask for more. It was really to help the community understand if we're if we um align to that survey data that that is a challenge. I just need the board and the community to see that. And so if you're asking me today this this seven mil is in my humble opinion >> [snorts] >> like that's that's the lowest maintenance with the 3 million cuts that's like the floor. Um anything below that we could certainly do that but it compounds our our kind of fall fairly quickly. Sorry, question on that. Um I was trying to find an I don't know if it's posted anymore. The deck that we shared in those town hall meetings. >> Yeah. It's posted. There's a graph with this, right? It would be helpful. So, that aligns to >> So, that the green the green line Yeah. Um still on it. Anyway, I can look later. I just If you could share this, maybe I could look later. Um I just felt like that was a helpful visual to compare >> Yeah, and those are the three we those are the three that we um held held up. Here it is. Um so it was on the website. >> This if you go Well, yeah. It's on the website and it's it's this line graph here. >> Okay? That's the one that you're referencing. Okay? Um and that green line on there that was the highest line during our town hall conversations that was the 377 per year and by year fiscal year 30 is when we would anticipate that we would start to dip below the fund balance threshold. Bless you. The fund balance threshold. Um so, that would carry us for three years. All right? And then the we had a 180 so it was it was actually a little less than um that other column that next column to the left. So, um Right there. Thank you. This is helpful to Yeah. So, >> [snorts] >> yeah. So, the 377. Okay. >> That was the three Between is the seven million. >> Yeah, that was the seven mil. Yeah. Yep. And the orange 180 the red and then the blue, the teal that is um just straight renewal. What we currently have. >> now. No inflationary factor. And then we added in the 4.5 in there. Got it. Okay. Yeah, and then we added and then trying to understand also Correct me, did we run a 10-year like what would it take to just do the 10-year run? Yeah, to see the 10-year we just need to look at that same document >> Before you move off of here, the reason why I asked this board is the feedback and you heard the same comments I did. Well, all of these go below the fund balance. They don't even last the 10 years. So, I asked Ellers or I asked Director Ryder to ask Ellers what would it take to just get us to the 10-year mark? Like what do we need every every month to make it last 10 10 years? And then we'll kind of talk about the Sure. step conversations. And 10 million would be the equivalent of taking that 3.3 and the seven. Okay? So, that's 15 plus 32. So, that's your $45 mark per month. Okay? Say that one more time. So, this is the green is the seven and we talked about the red being the 3.3 mil. So, from a tax impact perspective, you can take the combination of that 3.3 and the seven and you'll see it's $45 per month. And that's going to be your 10 mil mark. Now, that's going to be that line that's going to be above the green. Right? If we had that. That would be the 10 mil mark. Okay, I'm going to move away from this then and back over to here. So, did what I say just made make some sense there with regard to column the first column numbers of 3.3 and then the third column over of seven mil those two combined would be your 10 mil. And the tax impact would not be that much different than adding those two columns. So, you've got you've got kind of a a you know, you can put it all together and find the inter- intervals, right? And then the last one being that 15 million mark. Um step language next? Yeah. All right. So, then um Ellers shared with us an example of um Edina's ballot language they had from a past election. And this is an example of a stepped approach. So, what this means is that um you can have a levy question and indicate in it when there would be inf- um inflationary increases, but then in the year in which you would take a step up to a set number, you don't get inflation that set number year, but beyond that you can continue to get the inflation. So, you can have a period of time in which you can make steps up, so you're not asking for everything right up front, but then when you reach year three, for example, the language would read, "Now the amount would be this." And we'd have to set it in advance and make sure that whatever we set it for is is appropriate, right? And then from there until the next step, you receive inflation if that's what the language says. And you could do another step. This is only an example of two steps. Um I should say one step up and two steps, but you can do more. It's just as it's it's can it's communicating to the public what it means. That's that's the challenge with this type of language. Yep. And in our So, in our town hall conversations, you know, utilizing that blueprint print metaphor, obviously um as we go higher in the levy value, it drives that monthly payment up. And so, can you kind of like a an adjustable mortgage, can you gradually take the community along with you and demonstrate proof concepts along the way of the return on on those components? So, that's part of I think the rationale that might be helpful for our community um one to just um acclimate to the the increments of asks cumu- accumulating to a larger dollar amount that could deliver something above just keeping us afloat um while also demonstrating back and here are the interim results of the investments along the journey. So, if we did class size, just arbitrarily, that's a big thing that we hear about. Class size was, you know, years one, two, and three. That's going to be what we're going to ask for is to to affect class size where it matters most. Then maybe years four, five, and six, we then begin to add, you know, advanced differentiation and interventionist support. And then years seven through 10, it's the next thing, you know, but if we chunk it out um and demonstrate how we get the return on the investment in that chunk, um I think people could track and monitor that more closely than maybe the amorphous big dollar ask and where is it all going to go? So, just some thoughts for the board to I I have a question on that. Um if we chunk it out, cuz I obviously Edina did it. There's a couple of other school districts that have done that. More are going that way. >> yeah, more going that way. And at the end of the so many years, they have the option to one-time renew. Do they renew at the higher rate? Oh, nobody has intervaled up to to get to that renewal state yet. >> Well, actually a couple of districts already at their maximum tax capacity that did start with two intervals up. >> if they're at their max, then when they renew, >> renewed at the max, too, when they just did the Okay. Um and that's I just assumed that they would renew at the end of it. Yeah. Um but I just didn't know since it it's I think it's I think only one district that I know of has been in that position in the state. But I yeah, and I and I'd want to check into that, Director France, because not so I don't want to misspeak for another district, but when you renew, you renew with what you have. And so, if if what you have is at that point or if what you have is the scaffolded levy, so does it step up again for another 10 years? >> See, that's what I did. >> I don't want to speak to that whether And the district that I'm thinking of was at their maximum tax capacity and they had never failed the levy before, so it didn't matter. >> could only renew at their current. But that's why I'm saying I wasn't sure because that's the only example I could find. Um the other thing is is that um I guess I have a general question. Why would we put numbers out there where we're just going to drop below subsistence level in a couple years? Why wouldn't we start with the lowest level that we're asking people with in a range of a of a level that will keep us somewhat solvent and and with a minimal >> actually where we initially started as an admin team with this exercise. And again, I didn't want to assume and get too ahead of the board in this conversation, but that is where we started as our what we believe to be the floor. Um it So. The the 7 mil. Um >> Correct? Correct for the reasons that I've shared. >> Yes, for the reasons that you've shared. And I'm not saying that's the thing that you have to do, but I'm just saying I believe that is the floor to just stay afloat. If if that's what we believe is the floor. And I guess to not having full control over state and federal, does that even give us enough of a cushion to stay afloat the whole time? Well, I mean, that 7 mil staying afloat was with those $3 million in reductions, too. So, I mean, we'd want to do everything we can to um still continue our efforts to control costs and to take a look at what other, you know, grants and other things that there are out there. I mean, relying on any one source here is not going to solve our problem. This is a a multi-faceted complex issue. So, if we got 7 mil with an inflationary factor after year two, um and we're still cutting 3 million a year, cutting cutting, I mean, are we prepared to tell the community we're not going to be able to put the programs in now that we're cutting? Well, I mean, that it's a tricky one, right? Because the other thing about that is remember my five-year projections that we've got have assumptions built into them that might be, you know, like we were just discussing earlier, is it is it really necessary to continue the health insurance increase forward for five more years at that same rate? Or is it likely that that's going to come back down? You know, I mean, those kinds of things that were are things that we're going to have to tweak and figure out, you know, transportation, you know, what is the result of the full RFP once it's all said and done? Is there any savings there? Are we still going to have this issue at the same rate that we had projected, right? Because I had percentages built in for the next five years. So, every whenever you do a five-year projection, you'll hear me say the four four and five year, you know, they're out there. So, you have to reassess on a regular basis. That's the challenging part because you if you're going to make a promise to the community, you know, you want to be able to hold that promise up. So, hopefully you don't run into things that put a curve into it that all of a sudden now, you know, you thought you were fine with the assumptions you have. So, sometimes doing the worst-case scenario can help you because at least you can't you're not over-promising and under-delivering, you know? So, there's that to consider. It's like we just got to find the right balance for us. And we have to be able to communicate what it is what we're doing. My my perspective throughout my career has just been, "Here's what I know. Mhm. Here are the assumptions. I can't I don't have a crystal ball. I can't promise for sure, but I can tell you that with this information, this is where it would look like." Yeah, I guess my biggest fear is the is if the state decided to hold us at 0% increases, which is a I I think I think anything's possible with the state. I mean, we're seeing that right now with the special ed, you know, reduction. It's no longer going to be 250. Now we got to find He's backing off 50 million. So, that's going to be 300 million. And uh and also just learning about the literacy incentive aid being tied to the same formula as compensatory. And that's going to be a huge hit for us, you know, because we don't have the concentration of free and reduced lunch that some of them other districts do. And so, between compensatory and literacy aid, you know, this is our bread and butter for just core support for kids. Um so, so yeah. Dr. Thomas, >> Yeah. Yes. >> um Just a couple things. Um do do does any district ever do a five-year levy? Is that ever common? >> seen one. I don't know if you've ever seen that in your career. I mean, I've I've seen seven. I don't know that I've seen five. >> Okay. Just because like you said, the unknowns. I mean, I think part of it um to your point, Director France, is that I think our community does expect us to continue to optimize our resources. It's in our strategic plan. And if we have 80 8,000 students in five years, we may have to close an additional building. I mean, there's Those are all choices that I think that's that whole process of optimizing resources and making those cuts while still providing the programs to our community. So, I think that >> resources, but I'm just worried that if we start with too low of a number, we're going to get bit. That's my concern. And when you give people options and you start with too low of a number, they're going to obviously navigate to that lower number and then feel that you weren't forthright when we're still cutting and we haven't been able to make marked improvements. So, I guess my question is is why would we start something that we know we're going to be breathing out of a straw again with? Um that's it's just that's Yeah, and and again, I think this is the conversation, right? Um we're not advocating either way. I'll just pick up on this um sorry, pick up on the enrollment piece, too. Mhm. Because that is so our our 4 million um over time or I mean, our 3 million reductions every year are going to be heavily tied to the enrollment. So, as the high tide goes down, everything across the system will reflect that. Um so, I you know, as a community it's not just I don't I might not be saying this right, but it's not just about optimizing resources. It's It's reacting to the decline and we have to align for that and and and take into account for that. Um so but to your point, Director Friends there's also an expectation, I believe and I've heard it. Think you all have heard it in these meetings. There is a value add. People are looking for levies to not just be basic operational. Um similar to what Dr. Bisik said that boosters should be doing the the plus, the extras. Levies used to do extras. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, the situation that we find ourselves here in Minnesota is that many levies um your average levies, I'm not talking about the people that might sit at that far side of the line graph, but they're they're no longer just the extras. They are the They are the lifeblood, unfortunately. Um which goes back to and I don't want to be remiss from saying this. It's a both and. It's a local conversation and it's a state conversation. And and so, we know that the local is obviously within our scope of control at a much greater rate but that doesn't mean that our voices can't be where they ought to be and challenge and push back when we have leadership now almost doing a 180. You know, in some regards with the adjusted budget, you know? Um and I know [clears throat] you all some of you heard about this, too, when you're down there. So, this leads maybe into a discussion, Director Rider um just into the some of that costing components of just what what it takes. If we wanted to costing out some things that we've heard um just to share. This is not to say this is what we believe ought to happen, but we wanted to give you a sense of from [snorts] our academic standpoint, from our vision for what you know, we believe would help move outcomes for kids in in you know, accelerated ways. Um Going to find it. Okay, sounds good. So, couple things that we looked at was class Well, the first thing that we looked at was class size. And on average I think you've heard me say this before, moving class size down by one student K-12 is about a million bucks. Um and I want the board and our community to understand the research on class size is pretty vast in terms of where you'll have an effect you know, a rate of change. So, when you look at class size, the research will strongly support reducing class size in K-3. All right? Um and anything above third grade, your class size reduction really could go as high as almost 40 kids in a class and research will show it doesn't have a great academic effect. All right? So, what we what we looked at here was looking at just K-2. Um to really hone in, so we've you know, put out some numbers. So, this is what it would take to look at a 1 to 18 ratio. Um and the ratio in research is somewheres between 16 and 18. But we looked at 1 to 18 ratio which is down from our 22 class size target. To do that in K-2 and all of our elementary teachers for next year with the consolidation, that would require an additional 22 FTEs. Okay? Um when we start looking at then some of the instructional supports, we currently have reading specialists um in our elementary schools and um to to match that for two math and reading to add just for elementary, six math specialists, you see that cost there. Um looking at the middle school and high school to have something equivalent to do both the advanced acceleration work as well as interventional support work um you have the middle school and high school allocations there. And then similarly to class size at K-2 or K-3 when you when they look at research on class size for high school, it centers around your core subject content areas and research is [snorts] in the neighborhood of 28 to 31. And so, we just sharing with the board if we were to do the high school and middle school core classes at a target of 28 and set a target, that's what it would take. Um and then lastly, what you see there is if we wanted to supplement or do something different with some of the licensed support in those first A through D lines and use academic paraprofessionals, you can see what the average cost for one of those would be. Now, they're not going to get the effect and outcomes as licensed staff necessarily do, but it's a it's a I just wanted to have that out there. So, I share that because I I want and and now this isn't even going into some of the enhancement types of programs like we've been talking about tonight. I just wanted to focus in on kind of that instructional core if we made key investments around that instructional core. Um what costing could look like, okay? Um not that we're advocating for this but gives you a sense. And part of what I wanted to help the board and our community understand is the wants are very very high for things. And um and I just again, just starting here. So, if we wanted to enhance other types of programming um then obviously, programs are people. So, so just sharing that with you all to just get perspective and and I know a couple of us have talked about this in our one-on-ones. Yeah. Question I guess I don't understand like the specialist concept. So, like just take for example the middle school instructional specialist. Like, what does that mean and why do we need six of them? I guess if I just look at like we have advanced course work in every subject core subject besides math. Mhm. So, we have I I don't know, two or three sections of advanced MN studies or English or whatever, right? Like that's probably one FTE or even probably half of a teacher. So, why why do we need six to bring back middle school advanced instruction? >> it it wouldn't Thank you for that. I don't think um we're at a position here. I heard the superintendent say we're not saying this is our advocacy, but uh what would a specialist do? Uh teachers are doing the best they know how to do right this very minute. They're not saving their best strategies for any other day. They're using it now. So, if we want to perform better, we have to provide support for them to uh learn and improve their skills. There's hardly any professional learning time on our calendar uh as it is, the contract that was just approved negotiated away professional learning time. And so, um how can I get better? I might need instructional coaching. I need to work with somebody who can help me uh do better than I do right now. Uh cuz I'm doing the best I know how to do right now. And we haven't had that investment before. Uh, so a specialist allows you to treat both sides of the diamond. So, when I say diamond, I'm talking about the intervention side, which has three tiers to it, uh, and also the enrichment and extension side. And so, uh, you can train and deploy specialists to treat both sides of the diamond without saying, "These seven kids are going to go with this 1.0 FTE all day for intervention, but rather build the capacity of the whole grade level to meet intervention needs." Uh, and Director Olstad asked some questions about, "Well, how might that look at the middle level if we make a cut to a particular program?" But, I hear strong interest from the board, how are we going to extend and enrich and help and serve, uh, any learner who has the ability in any place to extend or enrich or be advanced in their studies. And so, uh, >> [snorts] >> it gives you a cost-efficient way to meet the needs of every kid, no matter what side of the diamond they're on, without saying, "We're going to pull out these 21 kids and say they get a 1.0 1.0 FTE." So, it's more nimble and efficient, which aligns with, uh, that optimization of resources that I hear is so important. So, it's an example of a way we could do that uh, based on the values that we've heard the board express over time. So, I mean, to be honest, like the the feedback that I hear from a lot of teachers is like, "I don't want specialists in my classroom. I would rather just a smaller class so that I can focus on teaching." You know what I mean? Like, I I feel like I hear that a lot where I just I I'm concerned like our community won't value instructional specialists. Maybe it's a lack of understanding. Whatever it is, and I know it was on the last levy, I believe, like differentiation specialists or interventionists, and I can't remember how it was worded, and that didn't pass. So, like, my only concern, again, my concern is how do we get this passed by our community, and do they value this? Like, I don't think when we sat in those town hall meetings, it was, "I wish we had more instructional specialists." It was like, "I wish we had advanced math in addition to other subjects." Or, you know, specific things. >> Yeah, I I totally appreciate that. You know, I I've worked in districts that have more resources than less, clearly. And, um, frankly, we can't afford a model where we do a traditional build a whole program for any particular learner. This is a more flexible model, and certainly people are going to map onto what their experience was. So, uh, when they were going to school, did they experience an a educational specialist? No. Do we have to call it that? No. But, I think what a community could appreciate, and probably would if we did a good job of communicating like I hear you advocating, is to say, "Do you want our teachers to have more capacity to do a better job for every kid, no matter what their needs are or what their special talent or skills are?" I think we want to extend and enrich for every kid who needs that support, and we currently don't do it. And we want to intervene for every kid who has a skill or knowledge deficit, and we currently don't do it. And I think the community would probably support that. And so, we could tell that story and build a model where we do that, and actually do some innovation even from a place where we have less resources than everybody else in the metro. We could still do innovation with that kind of work. So, I think with the right communication and the right partnership with our educational leaders who have high capacity, as I was talking about earlier, we could do something the community actually would want. But, folks are going to map onto what they know, and we haven't told them a story about what's possible in a way that's inspiring. And I think we can thread the needle in some ways by this kind of thinking. We don't have to call it educational specialists, though, but meet the needs of every kid, whether they're advanced or or at a deficit presently. I think the community would support that. Yeah. I Yeah. [clears throat] I I don't know if the I'm not sold on that either. Sorry. I I think we can talk about it. I mean, it's important for me to hear I think that >> what you're hearing, and to appreciate that. And, uh, I consistently hear like just again, the feedback from teachers is like, "We just want class smaller class sizes so that I can focus on doing my job and teaching." And I think from my perspective and what I hear from a lot of parents, we do a really great job in this district helping struggling learners through special ed, through whatever programming. It's our advanced learners that we're we're not doing as great of a job. >> Well, I I definitely hear that perception, and I hear that feedback, too. And frankly, when I was a principal, we did the thing I'm describing. And now, uh, you know, 40 to 80 schools a year go to that school, including people from Prior Lake just this very week already today went to go see, "How did you get that going? How did you build that?" And it didn't require hordes of new funding, and it didn't require, uh, traditional treatments. It took existing resources and said, "Let's do this in an updated way." And so, I think it's super important. Parents said the same thing I'm hearing you say. I'm one of those parents that wanted, uh, accelerated advancement and enrichment for my learners. Uh, but I will say, uh, I appreciate the perception that we're doing a great job for kids who who have needs, uh, to close gaps, but I'm here to tell you, we aren't doing an exceptional job of that. So, that could be the perception, and I totally would validate and honor that. And I'm telling you, we could do a lot better. And so, again, going back to [clears throat] the notion of, you know, the the the two dominant themes, you know, class size being one of them. Um, you know, if we just look at that, um, just pure classroom, both at [clears throat] the elementary and the secondary core, [snorts] um, that that alone is I I can't see that far. Oh, sorry. >> Um, A and F. Just looking at I'm sorry. >> of >> A, F, and E. Thank you. 3.63. Okay. So, if we're just looking at class size. Now, we're again, we're looking at kind of researched uh, ranges that show an effect size on on outcomes for kids. That is 3.6. Dr. Thomas, just in interest of time, are we here to make decisions on how this is going to look? Are we more here to talk about what this survey >> yeah. No, I appreciate that. I don't want to get too in the weeds of something that we can ponder and come back with more >> So, so I guess more conversation regarding, but I do have some feedback on the survey if we could get to that. >> Yeah. That that's fine. So, I wanted to just make sure you have that. So, if if if if any of that needs to be a part of lists of examples or or costing to the community so they understand what class size reduction takes, I want to make sure that we're they're not just saying class size and they have no idea what it might cost. >> Could you share these with us Yeah. following the meeting? Yeah. Thank you. One of the things that was feedback coming out of the other of the past levy is that we were not crystal clear with what these what we were, um, getting as far as if they were to spend, what their investment would be. So, I think that I do think that needs to be included in here somehow. Um, I also think we need to somehow add I had the pleasure of sitting at the table with a previous board director in one of our town halls, and I asked him straight up like, "Why how did you come up with 624?" Which was really 924 at the time, um, with no inflationary factor. Well, they had come off of another big or maybe was passing another big levy, the big capital levy. So, knowing we have a tax-sensitive community, that's where they came up with their dollar amount. So, I think including that, if we're going to include an inflationary factor, I think that that needs to be on here somewhere. Um, the other feedback I have is on the beginning of the survey. I just I have a really hard time, I'm a salesperson, starting out with a negative connotation of the first sentence is like so negative. And so, if we could focus on something that says something like, "Prior Lake Savage values are the input of our community, um, to help guide potential next steps, including whether to pursue an operating levy." Like, I don't know why we're starting a the first sentence with a negative, um, connotation. It just feels yucky to me. Um, I appreciate the verification of our district residents because, um, that I think is a very important. These are our taxpayers in our community. Um, and then, >> [snorts] >> I don't know Oh, the other thing I wanted to say is is there any way to add anything I would not to support a levy at any level to ask to add comments or why or I think that would be an interesting Yeah, that would actually be an interesting to get feedback on. Well, why wouldn't you suppose um, support a levy? Because that may behave be able to help us, um, how do I say, come back and re-look at how do you turn some of those votes, no votes, into a yes, right? And And there are people there are no votes who would turn to yes for various reasons. So, that's just my feedback. Um, open to hear from other board directors as well. Director France. So, first of all, I like the opening paragraph. We need to impress upon people the situation that we're in. We're not trying to sugarcoat anything. Um, and we need to be perfectly clear what's going on. Um, I do believe that number one, uh, under priorities and funding options is, um, it is a little leading, and I think you're using language in there like, intervention and enrichment, etc. I I uh, I'd like to see you guys take another cut at this to make it a little bit more, um, non-educational lexicon, so to speak, uh, simply because, um, whereas I think [snorts] we all understand what you mean, I'm not quite sure the person that doesn't have a kid in the district and hasn't heard this language maybe maybe create a little bit more um, you know, um, a little bit less uh, educational lingo focused here. Um, I don't know if we need to preface it also with their recent town hall conversations simply because um, that makes it sound like everyone's in agreement and we, you know, from 48,000 people in our district of which almost 30,000 are voting age, we had a, you know, just put down we've heard similar, you know, here's the options or here's just what we've heard, what do you think? That sort of thing. Um, and then on number two at the bottom um, I would put um, our best first range next to lower investment um, and don't do anything to kind of um, basically step on a rake by giving them a a number that we're going to be again suffering from. So, start with that um, start with something that is going to actually get us through the 10 years at a baseline um, maybe without many improvements, that sort of thing, but definitely is going to get us through with a conservative number and give smaller $5 increments as you go up into the higher or maybe $10 increments, whatever's going to get us to that optimum level um, and um, you know, gauge the uh, the feedback from that. Um, that would be my input. >> [snorts] >> Any other board member input on what was presented in our packet? Dr. Olstad. Um, I know that this is you know, intended to get feedback from you know, the the people who can vote on it, but I'm wondering if there's a way we can ask all families including open enrollees. Well, it it would. So, this survey would get pushed out to our families. So, they would get it through their emails. Well, and and I, okay, that's great because the number one it says we require respondents to verify that they are residents of the Prior Lake Savage Area School District. No. And that might not be the case. And so, I I like I I want to verify that information, too. I I do think it's important, but I just I don't want you know, an open enrollee to read this and go, well, then they don't care what I think, which we clearly do. So, I didn't know if Got it. somehow we can add >> We can change there add that, yep. >> Um, Director Olstad, I I would I'm not I just want to challenge you in the fact that though if somebody's coming and living in Burnsville and they say, I would love you guys to spend $22,000 to educate a student and they're not paying taxes how do we get I mean, how do you justify that? Well, and I I I I see that. I see that and I'm thinking if there's like even a check box like, do you currently have school age children attending Prior Lake Savage Area schools? Yes, we live in the district. No. Or yes, I do and we open enroll or something like that. So, if we I I do appreciate their feedback, but I see that point and I think we can I'm sorry. Can we get that from their address? Do we have to actually try to ask >> we can. I'm just trying to if if we can do one more click to make it easy >> When we when we've done this in the past cuz this is the same process we do, we capture and screen for that right when we run it and analyze it. Because like a Savage address, for example And they're tricky cuz they cross over versus Yes, good evening. So, in the um, I believe it was the post levy survey we did last spring or it was a it was a former survey that we did um, with Dr. Zumbusch um, was able to look at those addresses in the back end and um, with help with our business department um, would vet those. So, um, we did include open enrolled families, we can do that again. I I see your point where if you were an open enrolled family looking at it, you think that you couldn't take it. Um, but it is open. I have a clarification. >> I prefer not to discriminate fact that but I think it's the fact that we're really focusing on how much people would spend if one person got rid of a type. I I'd like to add cuz I think somebody else has talked quite a spoken quite a bit. Um, I would like I like her Director Olstad, I like your idea. I just don't want to call them out necessarily if we can look at it by address. And I think if it agreed. So, I think if if it is easy to or easy, I don't know if that's the right word. If it's if you can tell from an address by plugging it in that gives us the data that we need, but I yeah, I I see that, too. So, which just sounds like it is. >> Any other board member feedback on this? Yep, Director Mason. A couple of things. Um, question first of all, sorry. Um, how where are we going to distribute this? And like specifically, how are we going to get it out beyond just our district families? So, yeah, so our right now would be through our digital newspaper, it would be through our libraries, through QR codes. Um, it would be through our direct email to families who are currently enrolled here. Um, and you know, any kind of post in our schools. Could we potentially post it on like have the city post it on their website on the on the cities that you said the three cities? There's Credit River you know, Credit River is the toughest one because there there's a lot of Yeah. So, I mean, we we would access those types of venues, yeah. And obviously [clears throat] it would be on our website and you could scan it that way, too. Or take it live, you know, click live. Great. Um, yeah, I mean, I you know, I like the format of this. I like that we incorporate like we've already heard and so here's what we heard. Um, on question two so just so that I'm clear, you are going to add the numbers to these options, yes? Um, I I would add numbers um, and I would I would want to know I would want to get agreement from the board on that floor. So, like the lower would be the The the the lower was the seven. So, $32 So, we would probably say $32 per month Right. $32, yeah, yeah, yeah, we wouldn't yep. So, you're asking Dr. Thomas, you're asking for board direction on that. >> Well, I want I want to be mindful. I want to be mindful of our conversation tonight the comfort of the board. Is 32 the floor? Like As long as we qualify that because 32 is for the $525,000 home. Um, Yeah, we would Yeah, we would have that qualifier. You'd have to have something in there to kind of show them where they where they stood. >> will pay 32. No matter what number it is. Yeah, I mean, what the last levy was again? I know I asked this last time. It was 40 45 for >> 45 It was a 30, a 45. Okay. Yeah, it was 45. 45 is what it was on the Okay. Um, That would have given us 10 million. And and 32 doubles what we currently have, basically. >> [snorts] >> It doubles cuz it goes up to if you add the 600 plus the 12 it doubles what we're currently having. What's that? We're at 5.7, we would then be at 12.7. Correct. So, I think it doubles what we currently have. Right. I don't know. It almost feels like we should have a little bit lower of an option even if we had to reword this to say continue cuts or I don't know. I just I feel like that's a high place to start given the last one didn't pass and the Morse Leven Leatherman survey or whatever it was So, so again, we that that could be I mean, you could put low, you know, we're trying to keep three, but [snorts] you know, if we wanted to add a fourth and say lowest, lower, moderate, higher. >> Like if you say >> [clears throat] >> like the lowest investment is basically renewing the levy plus $20 we're still having to make cuts. So, I don't know. I just feel like that is something we might want to point out on here as a low point because you're still asking our taxpayers to pay more money while we make cuts. I don't know. Um, again, this is hard because we went with the higher amount the last round and it didn't pass. So, I'm just advocating that we do something that passes. Um, and and my other feedback on this besides the level levels is just I think we should be more explicit because that was part of the feedback from the vote knowers where we say address class sizes. I think we should explicitly say address class K through two class sizes. And you know, adds targeted student supports what does that mean? So, like I think we have to be more explicit. >> that's why I brought up this conversation on the thing. Um, so you all had a sense of what that could potentially be, the specialist conversation. Yeah. It's just that what I consider a student support, somebody else might think it's totally different, right? And so then we're not coming back with what we promised and that's where you Well, and I I would say, too, like uh, you know, the biggest um, thing that I keep thinking about myself after, you know, the past levy, the town halls, all of the things is like we need to make sure that um, we are continuing to point people to the source of information, which is the district. And while if you're if we're trying to get agreement upon what the asks are or if you're trying to get direction from the board tonight as of what the floor is, what I heard you say when you were sharing all of the the slides that you and your team had um worked on was that uh the 7 million is the floor and that's kind of where you and your team felt um would be the bottom ask. And when when I hear you say that and when I hear the context of other of your senior leadership team, um I want to take your recommendation of that's the floor. And I while we do have a tax averse community, um that has been our situation um for decades. Um and given our current situation, offering a tax increase that um does not meet that floor of keeping things the same while continuing to um face reductions given our projected decrease enrollment, um you know, it was again going back to where you stood with the the levy ask and presentation, you know, 2 years ago. Um While I I understand like oh, you know, maybe we should just do less so that we get something. I don't know that that is our the best thing for our community. I mean, when we're thinking about what our role is as board members, our role is to uphold community trust in our public education system. And the way that we do that is by listening to our superintendent, his senior leadership, and all of the district staff that pour into our students and families. And it's easy to um take information as our understanding of what given as board members and to you know, have questions um and we're to [snorts] bring those questions, but if we're not displaying trust to what the team is telling us, we are not upholding our duty. And so with that being said, I my thought is that the floor is the floor. So, what why don't I do this? Um uh we can go back and rework this to incorporate some examples and some costing based upon what I heard dialogue tonight. Um would it be okay for me to just email individually um the board members um to say give me your thoughts, [clears throat] give me your feedback. Um it's not going to be in a group. We're not going to have chats, but like your direct feedback to the revised version of that. And then so that your team can bring back >> And I'm hearing from you all and if you have perspective, then just bring it back to me and then cuz we're still targeting this to be so like that second or third week in April that would would go out. >> So, would we the would this come back to study session? Um this would come back to this would have to come back to the 13th meeting if you want to keep that time if you want to keep that timeline. Because I think that, you know, it's very helpful for the district. This is my my opinion. Um but I believe it is very helpful for the board that the district brings forward their best recommendation and I understand wanting to get board feedback. And so um if if the best way for you to do that is to send out an individual ask from board members to to yeah, to receive the feedback so that you can bring forward the the you know, um best recommendation as far as you and your team after hearing from the board, then I would suggest Then I'll do that. doing that. That's how I'll manage it. All right. And then we could still make the 13th for any kind of action and then it can still hit the the window. Are there any more um questions or feedback on on that item? I just want to say if it's okay. Please. Thank you for the hard work that you did put into this and for the preparation and the breakdown. Uh that helped it helped me a lot. So, I do appreciate the hard work. And I will send that to you all the costing so you can just get a sense. Oh, great. That would be great. And then I just have a quick question. Is the whole intent around this survey similar to what we did with the Morris Leatherman survey though? No, the Morris Leatherman was much more extensive. This was No, I understand, but it's is the intent like the end >> The intent is to What do you want What what what is what is our community want? >> Yeah, what yeah, like asking the community what what does the community want? >> to listen to the district's recommendation, but at the end of the day, the community are the voters. So, absolutely we need to listen to our community. So. Okay. I just wanted to understand the intent. >> a both and and and what are they willing to pay for that want? Okay. Thank you and thank you for the information. It's very helpful. Good. All right. There's no other items left on the agenda except to adjourn. Good night, everybody. >> Thank you. Thank you.